Recently, the American Assembly released Copy Culture In The US & Germany, a report based on an extensive survey about attitudes and practices surrounding media consumption and piracy in the two countries. (Disclosure: We supplied the design and layout work for the report.) It contains lots of interesting facts, and some very surprising ones—such as more support for content blocking than one would expect given the public reaction to things like SOPA and ACTA. We’ve already discussed one of the important broad takeaways—even more evidence that pirates buy more media—but amidst the smaller details in the survey are several other points that are worthy of a closer look.
Opposition to disconnection also rises sharply with income (which in turn correlates with the propensity to buy media). Among penalty supporters who make more than €3000/month, 20% support disconnection; 74% oppose it.
Should Infringers Face Disconnection? (Germany, By Income)
As the report notes, this could have something to do with the fact that higher earners also buy more media—though that still doesn’t make it entirely clear why this should be the case. Even more curiously, high-earners were more likely to support content blocking by ISPs, search engines and social networks, but still more likely to oppose internet monitoring.
It seems like there’s a lot of room for conjecture as to what these patterns mean, if anything, so I’m throwing this open to our readers, especially those in Germany: what social, economic or other factors that correlate with income might explain this trend?
There you have it. Violent video games are a “bigger safety threat” than guns, according to two out of three respondents. Seems pretty open and shut. Everyone cross out the word “gun” on your pet piece of legislation and replace it with “video game!” The nation is saved!
Many of you may be reaching for your guns/lower jaw/commenting implement. Before we start firing off mouths/angry wall o' text screeds/bullets, let's have a look at the methodology.
PPP surveyed 800 voters nationally from January 31st to February 3rd. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.5%. We oversampled 416 Democratic and 508 Republican primary voters with margins of error of +/-4.8% and +/-4.4% respectively. In Iowa between February 1st and 3rd we interviewed 313 Democratic and 326 Republican primary voters with margins of error of +/-5.5% and +/-5.4% respectively. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization. PPP surveys are conducted through automated telephone interviews.
This certainly seems above board. So, why do the results seem so surprising? Well, maybe it's the prevailing demographics of those surveyed. As pointed out in the comments at Kotaku, there are two factors that skew the results.
1. 72% of the respondents are older than 45.
2. The “violent video games” question was only posed to Republican primary voters.
Now, this data pretty much agrees with the stereotypical view that older people and Republicans trust guns more than they trust violent video games. Sure, there are plenty of outliers along the way, but the Republican Party has generally fought gun control laws, and older people are generally more distrustful of recent technology. In fact, given a narrow enough demographic, you could probably get poll results that indicates that “most Americans” believe cellphones are a bigger safety threat than depleted uranium.
So, what PPP has actually done is gift-wrapped a set of numbers useful for preaching to the converted. All it does is add to noise that surrounds this heated topic. Considering there's nothing else resembling that question in the other several dozen pages, one wonders why the question appears at all. Truly bizarre.
We’ve written more than a few times about how multiple studies have shown time and time again that those who file share tend to spend more on buying music than those who don’t. We’ve also talked about how the RIAA absolutely hates this fact and tries to dance around it at all costs. The latest move comes from RIAA sister organization, BPI (basically the UK RIAA), which has released a report (pdf) that they claim shows the opposite:
Appearing to debunk the common belief that filesharers
spend more on music than other consumers, Kantar
Worldpanel found that the average spend over a
12-month period for professed filesharers was lower
than the spend of consumers who only use legal
services. Kantar Worldpanel’s respondents diarise
their music purchases on an ongoing basis – there
are no estimates made of past purchasing, just an
accurate recording of spending patterns over time.
The panel data demonstrated that filesharers spent
an average of £26.64, compared with £33.43
by legal-only consumers, refuting the popular
argument that filesharers are the heaviest
spenders on music.
Of course, when you’re talking about averages, it’s not difficult to fudge the numbers a bit, and as TorrentFreak explains, that’s exactly what BPI did. If you break out the specific numbers, you can tell a very different story:
– Legal only digital music buyers spend an average of £33.43 a year. – File-sharers, in total, spend an average of £26.64 a year. – File-sharers, the 44.8% who are not buying, spend an average of £0 a year. – File-sharers, the 55.2% who are buying, spend an average of £48.26 a year.
TorrentFreak confronted BPI on this, and they shot back that TorrentFreak’s analysis was unfair:
“You cannot just wave away the 44.8% of file sharers who are not spending anything on music, despite being music ‘consumers’, and pretend they don’t exist or are not relevant. What happens if only 5% of file sharers are spending on music? Do we disregard everyone else who is freeloading?,” a BPI spokesman said.
“It’s not credible to discount the people who consume music, for free, illegally.”
Fair enough… except that BPI’s own numbers “wave away” all of the people who consume music legally for free, but don’t spend anything on music. That is, there is a very large percentage of people who don’t pay for music, but who also do not infringe. These people may listen to music on the radio or while walking around in stores, but neither purchase any music, nor file share infringing works. And if the BPI was being intellectually honest they would have to average all of those £0s into the average for “legal only” if they want to require all the £0s to be added into the infringing side as well. Basically, BPI is picking and choosing who it includes and excludes to make their argument look better. When it hand waves away all the zeroes on its side of the argument, while including all the ones on the other side of the argument, of course it’ll make the numbers look better for its argument. However, if you’re going to do an apples-to-apples comparison, you have only two choices. Either you include all the people who don’t buy on both sides or on neither. BPI didn’t do that. They only chose the ones who don’t buy on the file sharing side.
It’s important to note that an analysis of the UK market by economist Will Page, back when he was with PRS for Music, noted that only 40% of the UK adult population actually bought any music at all. So you’ve got 60% non-buyers, some of whom are file sharing and some of whom are not. The BPI report chose to only include those who file shared, and ignore those who didn’t. That’s a clear methodological problem with their data. If they’re going to include the non-buyers on the file sharing side, they need to include the non-buyers on the “legal” side, or they’re simply lying with statistics.
It would be something of understatement to say that the spiralling cost of healthcare has become a highly-charged political issue in the US (and elsewhere). But wherever people stand on the funding of medicine, there is an implicit assumption that it works, and is worth even the exorbitant prices that pharmaceutical companies may charge. Sadly, that’s often not true.
The reason is that drug approval is frequently based on partial or even misleading evidence from the crucially-important clinical trials that are conducted to check that a new treatment is safe and efficacious. Similarly, prescribing doctors often only have access to incomplete information when they are choosing drugs for a patient. Not knowing all the facts about medicines not only leads to a huge waste of money, since ineffectual or inappropriate drugs are sometimes prescribed, but can have life-threatening side effects. Here, for example, is a recent case involving the pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and its diabetes drug Avandia:
The licence for Avandia was revoked in Europe, in September 2010, because of evidence that it could cause heart failure and heart attacks. The drug can still be prescribed in the US, but not to patients at risk of heart problems.
A scientist with the Food and Drug Administration estimated that Avandia could have been responsible for 100,000 heart attacks in the US.
The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, has admitted concealing data about the damaging side-effects of the drug, and there is evidence of the drug’s harmful effects.
companies and researchers can withhold the results of clinical trials even when asked for them. The best available evidence shows that about half of all clinical trials have never been published, and trials with negative results about a treatment are much more likely to be brushed under the carpet.
This is a serious problem for evidence based medicine because we need all the evidence about a treatment to understand its risks and benefits. If you tossed a coin 50 times, but only shared the outcome when it came up heads and you didn’t tell people how many times you had tossed it, you could make it look as if your coin always came up heads. This is very similar to the absurd situation that we permit in medicine, a situation that distorts the evidence and exposes patients to unnecessary risk that the wrong treatment may be prescribed.
That comes from a site called AllTrials (disclosure: I am on the advisory board of the Open Knowledge Foundation, which is one of the supporters of AllTrials). It has a very simple, but very ambitious aim:
The AllTrials initiative is campaigning for the publication of the results (that is, full clinical study reports) from all clinical trials — past, present and future — on all treatments currently being used.
If doctors have the full facts about all the drugs they can prescribe, they are in a better position to choose wisely. That will almost certainly save both money and lives. Despite that undeniable fact, pharmaceutical companies continue to withhold data from clinical trials, defying a US law that requires them to provide it:
Since 2008 in the US the FDA has required results of all trials to be posted within a year of completion of the trial. However an audit published in 2012 has shown that 80% of trials failed to comply with this law. Despite this fact, no fines have ever been issued for non-compliance.
Of course, it’s not hard to see why drug companies don’t want all that data out there: it would mean that independent analyses could be conducted, with the danger that they might come to very different conclusions about the efficacy and safety profile of the medicine in question.
GSK today further demonstrated its commitment to clinical trial transparency by announcing its support for the AllTrials campaign. The campaign is calling for registration of clinical trials and the disclosure of clinical trial results and clinical study reports (CSRs) to help drive further scientific understanding.
Specifically:
GSK is committing to make CSRs publicly available through its clinical trials register. CSRs are formal study reports that provide more details on the design, methods and results of clinical trials and form the basis of submissions to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA) and other regulatory agencies. From now, GSK will publish CSRs for all of its medicines once they have been approved or discontinued from development and the results have been published. This is to allow for the data to be first reviewed by regulators and the scientific community. Patient data in the CSRs and their appendices will be removed to ensure patient confidentiality is maintained.
In addition, while there are practical challenges, the company also intends to publish CSRs for clinical outcomes trials for all approved medicines dating back to the formation of GSK. This will require retrieval and examination of each historic CSR to remove confidential patient information. Given the significant volume of studies involved, the company will put in place a dedicated team to conduct this work which it expects to complete over a number of years. Posting will take place in a step-wise manner, with priority given to CSRs for its most commonly prescribed medicines.
If GSK follows through on those promises, and really does provide all that data in a timely fashion, this is potentially huge. As Ben Goldacre, author of the book “Bad Pharma” about the betrayal of doctors and their patients by drug companies through the withholding of vital information, and a prime mover of the AllTrials campaign, explains:
The eccentric position is now not supporting alltrials.net. There is no serious defense for withholding information about clinical trials from doctors and patients. It is simply unethical, and it harms patients.
GSK’s move is a breakthrough for the campaign because it negates arguments that it’s simply not possible to provide detailed clinical trial information as a matter of course. This means that the pressure will be on the other pharmaceutical companies to follow suit — or to give the impression they have something to hide about their products.
In the recently released Copy Culture In The US & Germany survey report from the American Assembly (for which we provided the design & layout work), one small but especially interesting component is the list of reasons given for downloading TV shows and movies. The American responses were pretty evenly distributed among the various key reasons, and serve as a laundry list of things that piracy does just slightly better, or slightly more permissively, than most legitimate sources:
Why I Download TV/Movies For Free (US, Based On Americans Who Do)
While price was one of the top three reasons, this hardly paints a picture of penny-pinching freeloaders—rather, it shows emerging trends in media consumption that distributors and rightsholders simply can’t keep ignoring. Absolutely none of these responses are surprising, because they are exactly the way people have been interacting with the majority of content online for years now. They share, they use multiple devices, they expect comprehensive access and a choice of sources, they want access as soon as possible, and they are put off by obtrusive advertising.
Of course, that last item is a bit of an oddity. The knee-jerk reaction among most people is that all advertising is bad, but that seems to underestimate the amount of stuff that advertising pays for or subsidizes, and that most of us happily enjoy on a daily basis. Advertising is one of those things that only ever gets badmouthed, because you only focus on it when it’s bad — when it’s good it doesn’t register as advertising because it doesn’t register as intrusive. The perennial buzz around Superbowl commercials and the 44-million views on Old Spice’s famous viral ad support this notion pretty strongly.
In the world of online television, I think there’s room for both subscription models and advertising-funded models — and even some combinations of both if balanced correctly. But until content providers start tackling the overall problem by catching up to pirate sources in the many areas where their services fall short, no model is going to succeed in defeating piracy.
The search for intelligent life might be more fruitful if we started looking more closely at other animals right here on Earth. The progress of artificial intelligence in computers might also be surpassed by breeding a few hyper-intelligent pets someday. Some zoo animals are already playing around with iPads, so maybe we’ll have some super smart cyborgs… In any case, here are just a few examples of projects that are studying how smart our fellow vertebrates might be.
TorrentFreak highlights one key point: which is that of the surveyed musicians a mere 6% of revenue comes from the sale of licensed music. We’ve long argued that music sales make up a minority of the revenue artists make, so it’s good to see some support for that. Of course, the report notes that different types of musicians make money in different ways, so this does not mean that the 6% number applies across the board to all musicians. There certainly are some musicians who make a large percentage of their income from sales. But the key point is that those artists are in the minority, and focusing solely on music sales and changes to that market gives you a very distorted picture of how artists are making money, and the impact of things like a decrease in revenue from music sales.
There is plenty of interesting data in the report, but one thing that struck me concerned the artists’ general attitudes towards technology. It’s mixed, to be sure, but some of the often-repeated claims by some maximalists don’t appear to be true. For example, we hear stories that part of what’s so unfair with the system today is that the artists are “losing control” over their works, but many artists don’t agree with that at all, recognizing that technology means they have a lot more control over their works. The difference, of course, is that the complaints about “loss of control” were really more driven by the old gatekeepers — mainly the major record labels. For them, it’s true that they really have been losing control, but much of that control has actually moved back to the artists (and, yes, much of it has also gone to fans). But for artists who were outside of the major label system, it’s often meant much more control over their own careers.
The end result is that artist attitudes towards technology and its impact on their careers is really mixed. In many cases, on key questions — it seems like artists are almost equally divided. You can see that in the chart below:
From this chart, you can actually see that just as many artists think that file sharing has helped them as think that it has hurt them. Remember that the next time someone claims to be speaking for all artists’ attitudes on these kinds of things. If I had to guess, it seems likely that trends are moving more towards artists recognizing the benefits of such things — but I could be wrong about that assumption. I guess we’ll see the next time they do this survey.
The report also looks closely at how much copyright really impacts an artist’s income. To hear some talk about this stuff, without copyright, there would be no way for artists to make money at all. However, as we’ve argued over and over again, many revenue streams have nothing to do with copyright, and the report bears this out. As noted above, direct sales only account for 6% of income on average, but the report digs in even more and looks artists across different income levels and genres, showing both differences across those different slices, but also confirming that there are many different revenue streams:
Those charts show some differences, including that higher earning musicians do tend to rely on copyright more, but it’s still a relatively smaller part of their income than other sources.
Putting it all together, DiCola created this wonderful chart that looks at copyright- vs. non-copyright income across different income levels and genres:
Really interesting stuff. Not surprisingly, composers rely on copyright quite a bit, as they tend to get a significant chunk of revenue from licensing efforts. But even they still tend to rely heavily on income that is at best, indirectly related to copyright. All in all a very interesting read, as you begin to realize that the primary story usually told — that artists all rely on copyright and that infringement is clearly a bad thing — isn’t necessarily true across the board.
There are a lot of reasons to be optimistic about the future. Some folks will always predict doom and gloom, but we say, “The Sky Is Rising!” (loud and proud — and again with sequel The Sky Is Rising 2). The advent of digital information has created an enormous wealth of data, and the amount of this digital awesomeness seems to be growing all the time. Here are just a few more examples of the amazing abundance of media that surrounds us.
A year ago, we announced our Sky is Rising report, sponsored by CCIA, looking at the state of the global entertainment industry over the last decade — and seeing that, despite the doom and gloom that we heard from some legacy players, the story actually showed tremendous opportunity. There was massive growth in content being produced, growth in revenue (though often distributed differently than through traditional gatekeepers) and tremendous new opportunities for content creators. It also found that, contrary to the claims that people just wanted content for free, people were spending more on entertainment. All in all, the data showed a much more positive picture than some have been spinning. That said, it did also highlight many of the challenges that content creators faced, with two key ones being important: the massive growth in content meant much more competition for consumers’ dollars, while the changing technology and services landscape meant that the specific road map was a lot less clear.
This year, we’re back with our second edition of the report, The Sky is Rising Two, once again, kindly sponsored by CCIA. This time around, we focused much more specifically on a few key countries in Europe: Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Russia and Spain. After the first report, we received some very reasonable questions about whether or not the global data reflected the situation across every country, or if one or two places (such as the US) might dominate and distort the picture in other countries. We chose to look at six of the larger economies in Europe individually, to see what we might find, and that’s the focus of the second report. Once again, we’ve got a nice infographic that summarizes many of the findings:
What we found this time was that, as expected, there are some big differences within different countries — with some doing better in certain areas, and some struggling in other areas. But, on the whole, the general picture was the same. The various industries were growing. The amount of content being created was growing. The number of new services enabling new business models and new ways to distribute content were growing massively. It’s an exciting time, and the key point is, once again, that there is no “conflict” between tech and content. Rather the two work hand in hand together quite well, with new services enabling all sorts of growth opportunities for artists.
Of course, the same caveats that we saw last year still apply. There is more competition, and the path to success may be less clear. So for individual creators, it may seem like a much greater struggle — though their overall slate of opportunities continues to increase. Similarly, with new services and new opportunities, there remain challenges for the legacy players (especially if they had gatekeeper roles) to remain relevant. Please check out the full report below:
Also, since the report covered countries where English was not the primary language, we also had the report translated into German, Spanish, French, Italian and Russian. You can find each of those versions at the bottom of the Sky is Rising 2 page.
Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.
While it may seem like a shot across the bow of videogames to score some cheap political points, what Obama actually has in mind is a bit more subtle. (Make no mistake, though: this subject wouldn't have been broached if not for the Newtown shooting.)
Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence: The President is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. It is based on legal analysis that concludes such research is not prohibited by any appropriations language. The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact. And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.
Two things worth noting in this paragraph:
The “Presidential Memorandum” lifts a moratorium on this sort of research by the CDC, something that has been in place for over 15 years. Kyle Orland at Ars Technica explains:
[T]he federal Centers for Disease Control have been prohibited from funding studies that “advocate or promote gun control” since 1996, when Congress cut the $2.6 million the organization had been using to fund gun injury research through its Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Further moves since then have prevented the CDC from even receiving federal crime data for gun research, and prohibited the National Institute of Health from doing gun violence research as well.
And why was this research prohibited? Depending on who you ask, it's either because the NRA didn't like guns being tied to injuries and death (Orland calls it a “chilling effect” brought on by Arthur Kellerman's study) or the study itself was severely flawed and skewed to fit the pre-existing bias of the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which operated under the CDC's direction.
Secondly, the wording directs the CDC to focus on areas with the “greatest potential public health impact.” The administration may namecheck current hot buttons like videogames and violent media, but as it's worded, the CDC has no instruction to start its work by assessing these areas. As Orland states, this one sentence is likely nothing more than a brief concession to the current political climate:
Making a brief mention of video game studies as a part of a $10 million funding request is a good way to pay lip service to these political concerns on both the left and the right without really making it a priority. If studying video game and media violence were actually a major focus of the president's gun control agenda, it would have a much more prominent place in both his remarks and his official funding requests. Instead, the real money the president is asking from Congress will go to more important things: $20 million for the National Violent Death Reporting System, $14 million for police and security training, $150 million for in-school mental health counselors, $30 million to develop school emergency management plans, and so on.
Overall, putting the CDC in charge is probably (in the parlance of government works) the “least worst” way to handle this. The CDC will have access to more mental health-related data than other existing entities, a factor that definitely needs to be considered. (But this factor also presents its own problems: it's entirely too easy to write off mass murderers as mentally defective. The idea of taking someone's life, much less multiple lives, is so repulsive to “normal” human beings that the kneejerk reaction is to blame it on mental illness. It's safe to say that normal people would never commit mass murder, but it's way too simplistic to assume that every perpetrator is mentally defective.) It should also have access to demographic and other environmental factors, which should give it a more rounded picture than the limited sample sizes and variables of smaller studies and surveys.
Another factor that makes the CDC a preferable choice is the fact that it's an existing agency. Turning this task over to a special committee would result in a room filled to capacity with appointees and their predispositions. (The argument can also be made that the CDC carries its own predispositions, but expecting a government directive, especially an executive order, to conjure up a completely impartial study is to show a level of faith the government simply doesn't deserve.)
Now, the downside.
Any conclusions the CDC comes to will be immediately suspect. No matter what it finds, the conclusions will be disputed. The presence or absence of a link between violent media and gun violence will only exacerbate the divide between both sides of the debate. To date, no link has been conclusively proven. This study's outcome will likely be more of the same. It's nearly impossible isolate people and “violent media” from the other factors that affect the equation. The CDC should be able to incorporate its existing knowledge in regards to risk factors, but the answers it comes up with will fail to satisfy everyone. Ultimately, it will change nothing, but it will have the power to inform government policy going forward and, depending on the political climate, it's likely that gossamer-thin correlation will be enough to justify legislation.
Then there's the tangled issue of gun control policy, something the CDC has waded into in the past. Again, any conclusions drawn will be contrasted against its history with the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and its biased approach to the study of gun violence. (Particularly troublesome is a 1987 CDC report, in which the director of the NCIPC thought enough evidence existed to “confiscate all firearms from the general population” in order to prevent 8,600 homicides a year.) The administration has done a disservice to both groups (video game fans, gun owners) by making this study inseparable from a larger gun control proposal.
The best case scenario, like so much in government, is that nothing happens. The studies are proposed, the climate shifts and, like so much before it, it's discarded in favor of What's Ailing the Nation Now. While it would be interesting to see the CDC perform an in-depth study (especially if the data collected is made available to the public), the chance of a negative outcome (in terms of misguided legislation, etc.) is way too high.
On the whole, though, it is refreshing to see videogames treated as part of the media, rather than a wholly distinct scapegoat capable of destroying society on its own. Unfortunately, even with its rather brief appearance in the administration's set of proposals, it appears the government still wants to control media (as opposed to “the media”) and this single paragraph could help rationalize unconstitutional measures.
